The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. As long as the Defendant arbitrarily exchanged the instant laser processing machine, which is the leased goods, and thereby prevents the Defendant from returning to the victim, the crime of embezzlement is established without relation to whether the instant laser processing machine is actually occupied. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was not in custody of the instant laser, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Examination ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the ex officio judgment.

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor filed an application for permission to amend the indictment with the content that the indictment in this case was modified as follows, and this court permitted this and changed the subject of the trial against the defendant. In this regard, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

On October 15, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the victim and kept him/her on behalf of the victim, on condition that the market value of the victim non-NN case capital owned by the D office located in the commercial building in the commercial building in the Siri-si, Siri-si, the deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000 from October 15, 2013 to October 15, 2017 is paid in KRW 60,000,000,000,000,000 won.

On January 2014, the Defendant transferred the above processing apparatus to E, which is different from that of the above processing apparatus, from that of the above processing apparatus, and transferred the above processing apparatus (the model name 2512HD-3020D), which is the object of lease contract with the victim, to E at his own discretion.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the victim's property.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court below is without examining the prosecutor's argument on the ground that there is a ground for reversal ex officio as above (the prosecutor modified the indictment in accordance with the purport of the appeal of this case, and the defendant recognized all the modified facts charged) Article 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act.